Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)

[dont_do_it_doug.]

5 minutes ago, Richard said:

@DDID,  I can only repeat what I said some pages ago.

Then I'm confused. I don't understand your issue with the two tweets we have discussed today. You've basically covered all the bases in that post to interpret each individual communication however you like. 

Never mind. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by dont_do_it_doug.

[Richard]

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Then I'm confused. I don't understand your issue with the two tweets we have discussed today. 

Never mind. 

first tweet about the motivation,  for me went into the realms of team interference .  You think otherwise I have no issue with that

second tweet ,  earlier in the day TRO suggested he felt that our owner's tweeting or certainly aspects of the tweeting would tone down in time,  I am merely speculating that his latest response suggests otherwise to me.

[TheStagMan]

I like Tonys tweets.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Richard said:

Not sure to be honest.  It was in response to this " I don't think owners or chairman should have Twitter. If they do it shouldn't be about club business ".

The response from our owner I read as saying - Thats the old days friend. I think all football club business is fans business.

me too and he's right. The only difference between the old days and the new ways is that the communication is direct, rather than via favoured hacks, and that there's a more open feel to it, less formal. Football fans "invest" so much time and money and emotion into their clubs, that a club responding, a bit, in kind is to be welcomed. 

[sne]

Can I just say, I'm not particularly fond of the font he's using in his tweets.

Edited September 2, 2016 by sne

[Richard]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

me too and he's right. The only difference between the old days and the new ways is that the communication is direct, rather than via favoured hacks, and that there's a more open feel to it, less formal. Football fans "invest" so much time and money and emotion into their clubs, that a club responding, a bit, in kind is to be welcomed. 

I think there is a difference between vehicle and content.  I have no issue really with the vehicle adopted.  Social media is the way to go it is direct,  immediate,  reaches a wider fanbase and all that good stuff. My issue is more with the content of that communication and that is where I would argue that not all the football club business is fan business.  It for me is not healthy to have all the issues within the club exposed to the whole population as it were .

[Richard]

2 minutes ago, sne said:

Can I just say, I'm not particularly fond of the font he's using is his tweets.

I dont like his larger profile picture. the smaller one with him side on is much better

[dont_do_it_doug.]

7 minutes ago, Richard said:

first tweet about the motivation,  for me went into the realms of team interference .  You think otherwise I have no issue with that

second tweet ,  earlier in the day TRO suggested he felt that our owner's tweeting or certainly aspects of the tweeting would tone down in time,  I am merely speculating that his latest response suggests otherwise to me.

Ok.

Then I think you badly misinterpreted the earlier tweet and I see absolutely no issue with the tone of the latter tweet. It's a perfectly courteous and straightforward response, which is hard to achieve in 140 characters.

Unless you are suggesting he should ration himself?

[StefanAVFC]

How on earth is posting a 4 minute YouTube clip, 'interference' with the manager's position? 

Come off it.

[blandy]

Ok. For me, the film clip, Gabby turning down a move, the other stuff posted is all fine. The odd clumsy choice of language, but that could and did happen in yon olden times too.

[Richard]

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Ok.

Then I think you badly misinterpreted the earlier tweet and I see absolutely no issue with the tone of the latter tweet. It's a perfectly courteous and straightforward response, which is hard to achieve in 140 characters.

Unless you are suggesting he should ration himself?

In actuality Dave he can do what he wants cant he. Not one of us can actually stop him and I am not for one moment suggesting that we can stop him! But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldnt comment on his tweets and I guess we all interpret tham how we want dont we?

[Richard]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Ok. For me, the film clip, Gabby turning down a move, the other stuff posted is all fine. The odd clumsy choice of language, but that could and did happen in yon olden times too.

Yes but in those times the chalk could be rubbed off the slate a lot easier

[Jareth]

13 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

I like Tonys tweets.

I like Tony's tweets too. I actually like Tony. I think liking Tony is part of liking his tweets. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

5 minutes ago, Richard said:

In actuality Dave he can do what he wants cant he. Not one of us can actually stop him and I am not for one moment suggesting that we can stop him! But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldnt comment on his tweets and I guess we all interpret tham how we want dont we?

Sure. You don't actually say what he should and shouldn't tweet, in your opinion?

As long as he stays clear of revealing contractual information or overly criticising active members of the team (such as post Bristol) then I'm cool with whatever. I think his positivity, his passion, strength and his willingness to communicate are fast becoming essential parts of our recovery process. 

He has, somehow, managed to engage and reignite the fire under the fan base. That in spite of some disappointing results on the pitch. It's a minor miracle.  

[BOF]

It is nice that his tweets are all we're discussing though isn't it /rhetorical

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

He has, somehow, managed to engage and reignite the fire under the fan base. That in spite of some disappointing results on the pitch. It's a minor miracle.  

We're actually pretty easily pleased. People like hope, and he delivers it.

[Seat68]

I love Dr Tony. There I said it. 

[terrytini]

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Sure. You don't actually say what he should and shouldn't tweet, in your opinion?

As long as he stays clear of revealing contractual information or overly criticising active members of the team (such as post Bristol) then I'm cool with whatever. I think his positivity, his passion, strength and his willingness to communicate are fast becoming essential parts of our recovery process. 

He has, somehow, managed to engage and reignite the fire under the fan base. That in spite of some disappointing results on the pitch. It's a minor miracle.  

Yes.

IMO,  - and I know it is a free society on here ! - we may as well move on from discussing whether he should tweet, and if so what, seeing as it's going to happen anyway.  But that's just me.

What I find far more interesting is the 'why'.  And I think there is a lot in what TRO has been saying about the 'old days' under Sir Ron etc...the winning culture, the fierce 'don't bet against us' culture'...................Tony is actually reminding me more and more of Fergie when he took over at United. 

he set his first and overriding objective as a total culture change, and made high profile examples of certain players in order to do so.  Yes, there was no twitter so it came out in newspaper columns  - and later in books - but it seems to me it was pretty much the same thing. Don't mess with me, don't mess with us, and (as long as they stick by what I want ) don't mess with my players.

Yes, one is owner and the other a Manager, but back then a Manager could wield power, and use fear, and be intimidating. Nowadays a Manger can't do that.  Multimillionaire players would take no notice.  Now it has to be about carefully constructed man - management at all times.

But an owner ?  That's different.  HE does have supreme power even over the players, should he be willing to see any battle through to the end.

I have said I am against him using Twitter because it gives idiots a platform as we have seen and because I think the Clubs comments should be more controlled.  I still, on balance, think that, and think he could get his message over through more organised briefings (which don't have to be 20 words or whatever), but, I am more and more certain that he knows exactly what he is doing, and it is designed to  achieve a similar cultural shift to that I have referred to here.

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Sure. You don't actually say what he should and shouldn't tweet, in your opinion?

My view - should tweet things like announcements and most of what he's been putting out there.

Shouldn't tweet criticism of named individual current staff - it's bad practice, poor management, demotivating, and potentially weakens the club's position in the event of any dispute.  Comments like "we weren't good enough on Saturday, weakness all over the park" (I made that one up) seem fine to me.

Shouldn't tweet jibes about people like Holloway - looks petty and childish, quite far away from the image I understood the club wants to create.

And most of all, should not tweet false information about whether characters like whatsiface were connected with Recon.  Fans are applauding him for "transparency".  Giving false information on something like this is the very opposite of transparency.

The first two are about discretion and diplomacy, the third is about honesty and openness.

[DCJonah]

58 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

How on earth is posting a 4 minute YouTube clip, 'interference' with the manager's position? 

Come off it.

How anyone can argue this is just amazing.